Thursday, September 27, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford in the land of Narnia?

Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it is obvious she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth. (pg. 52) 

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

248 comments:

1 – 200 of 248   Newer›   Newest»
Dave Duffy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Moore said...

There's a fourth possibility - she could be honestly mistaken. It's not true that sane people have perfectly reliable memories.

Legion of Logic said...

If Kavanaugh was your family, would you be convinced he's a sexual predator based upon the evidence for and against him?

I wouldn't.

Now, if it was your worst enemy, would you be convinced? If so, perhaps you should consider how your political bias is interfering with your judgment.

Dave Duffy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugo Pelland said...

"If Kavanaugh was your family, would you be convinced he's a sexual predator based upon the evidence for and against him?"

Yes I would, based on the accusations and other testimony brought forward, but "predator" is a strong word in the sense that I am not sure he knew what he was doing was wrong. There are so many men, and the older they more true this is, who simply don't get where the line of conscent is, or even think that a little bit of rough play or a weak no is not really sexual assault. Sexual ignorant might be more appropriate.

And to be clear, it's not obvious at all. None of us here can truly make an informed decision I think...

Dave Duffy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugo Pelland said...

It's more rumours honestly, but there's this thing about how he likes to be surrounded by model-like women, essentially objectifying his female colleagues. And now we're up to 5 accusers if I understand correctly?

Again, not a strong position but I tend to believe victims bu default because they have so little, if anything, to gain with lying. Do you remember the name of Cosby's accusers? Just 1?

Dave Duffy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugo Pelland said...

Am I personally charging him with something? Am I in a court of law?

You asked for an opinion; I gave you one, and insisted that it's not a strong one. I'm sorry you don't understand nuanced positions.

By the way, reread your second to last sentence, you wrote the opposite of what you meant.

Legion of Logic said...

A bunch of accusations from 36 years ago, never before mentioned until Democrats unleash it right before he is confirmed?

Every potential witness named has denied any knowledge of the event and denied even being present, so that there are zero witnesses?

Inconsistencies in the accusers' testimony?

Time and place not specified so no alibi possible?

One woman continually attended parties with gang rapes occurring, but kept going back and never said anything to anyone?

Not one person ever told until supposedly 2012, when Kavanaugh was floated as a Romney pick?

Every lawyer a Democrat activist, if not the accusers themselves?

None of this flagged in decades of FBI background checks?

I call complete BS. There is no reason to destroy this man's life and character over mere accusations with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.

Hugo Pelland said...

Destroy his life? HIS life? Don't you see how much SHE is messing up her own life by saying this publicly? She has nothing to gain. Can't you see how much strength it takes to come out like that? Did you not read about all her explanations? It's precisely because the stakes are so high now that she is coming out. I'm still not 100% sure myself, but the way you guys react makes it more obvious why it's so hard for women to speak up.

Ask a woman, especially one who was assaulted hersefl, not hard to find. Ask them why they believe her and why they understand the prolonged silence over decades.

Legion of Logic said...

Hugo: Destroy his life? HIS life?

Well let's see. Half the country now believes he is a drunken sexual predator, despite the lack of any actual evidence, and his family has been receiving death threats. Yes, yes indeed his life is being destroyed intentionally by Democrats and leftists.

And if he is innocent, which you know he very well might be, then think how he feels right now. Just imagine that.
Given that very real possibility, does he not deserve the presumption of innocence?

If he's guilty, then he deserves what he is getting slammed with now, but either way, life destroyed. Reputation destroyed.

That's why there has to be EVIDENCE. No place, no date, no witnesses, no corroboration, no flags in multiple FBI background checks, nothing.

And to say she has nothing to gain by lying? You haven't been paying attention to how hysterically frantic Democrats are to stop the court from tilting right. They are FRANTIC. Ford is a registered Democrat who has participated in anti-Trump marches. If she is an activist (hard to say with deleted social media), well activists do not fear the spotlight of negative attention. Her lawyer is certainly a Democrat activist, and her accusation is being used in a full court character assassination by the Democrats.

Now, am I accusing Ford of this? Not at all. Know why? I lack the evidence. Her inconsistencies, then fact that her witnesses denied witnessing anything, are certainly odd, but they do not prove nefarious motive. The Democrats are certainly behaving like animals, but perhaps they are simply abusing her situation and no one cares.

Perhaps Kavanaugh did it. Perhaps someone else did it and she is mistaken on the identity. Perhaps she is lying. The best way to make a judgment is through the evidence presented, and no evidence has been presented that would even come close to convicting Kavanaugh of sexual assault. If the presumption of innocence in the pursuit of justice makes it hard for women to come forward, then that is extremely unfortunate. But there has to be the presumption of innocence. We do not get to claim Kavanaugh is / was a predator or Ford a malicious liar without sufficient evidence. Right now, there is insufficient evidence to believe the worst of either.

One Brow said...

Well let's see. Half the country now believes he is a drunken sexual predator, despite the lack of any actual evidence, and his family has been receiving death threats. Yes, yes indeed his life is being destroyed intentionally by Democrats and leftists.

*Was* a drunken sexual predator.

If he is not confirmed, then two years from now Kavanaugh will be a footnote, and still an appellate judge on the DC circuit. If for some reason he chooses to leave the bench, he'll become a highly paid lobbyist or lawyer. Either way, he'll be fine.

Ford is a registered Democrat who has participated in anti-Trump marches.

A sexual assault victim who marched against Trump? Why would that ever happen?

...no evidence has been presented that would even come close to convicting Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

Good thing he's not on trial.

If Kavanaugh had had the wherewithal for self-reflection, he could have turned this around as soon as Ford spoke up. He could have discussed how much he regretted his youthful behavior, how the pain he has caused made him realize the importance of protecting others in society, etc. Had he done that, my opinion of him probably would have gone up. However, he's too ensconced in his own privilege to think that he needs this sort of reflection.

One Brow said...

John Moore said...
There's a fourth possibility - she could be honestly mistaken. It's not true that sane people have perfectly reliable memories.

I am sure there are possibilities as well.

However, her description of their laughter makes it hard to accept that she mistook their identities.

Starhopper said...

Even if Kavanaugh were innocent of all charges, his totally unhinged, paranoid, nakedly partisan, conspiracy theory laden rant of an opening statement, all by itself, ought to disqualify him from any and all further consideration for ever being anywhere near the Supreme Court, let alone seated on it.

For the sake of our country, I (literally) pray to God that he's voted down.

bmiller said...

Yeah. And he told a fart joke when he was 16 too.

SteveK said...

Starhopper
You are (literally) one of the most unhinged and irrational people on this blog. I say that without the slightest hint of hyperbole or bias. I pray you get help one day.

bmiller said...

The only real question that remains is who will be the next SC nominee after Justice Kavanaugh takes the bench.

The oldest 2 current members are Ginsburg (85) and Breyer (80). Nature has a way of deciding things regardless of people's wishes.

Starhopper said...

{You are (literally) one of the most unhinged and irrational people on this blog.

I'd worry about myself if no one said such a thing about me. I can now rest easy.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
Starhopper
You are (literally) one of the most unhinged and irrational people on this blog. I say that without the slightest hint of hyperbole or bias. I pray you get help one day.


So unhinged he thinks attempted rape is as similarly troubling as a fart joke?

Dave Duffy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bmiller said...

Speaking of Cory Booker, shouldn't he be pressured to resign?

Legion of Logic said...

Even if Kavanaugh were innocent of all charges, his totally unhinged, paranoid, nakedly partisan, conspiracy theory laden rant of an opening statement, all by itself, ought to disqualify him from any and all further consideration for ever being anywhere near the Supreme Court, let alone seated on it.

The Democrats, who have disgraced themselves beyond redemption as far as I'm concerned, absolutely deserved it and more. Kavanaugh was fully justified in his condemnations and was dead-on in calling them out for why they were doing it.

You don't calmly allow your name and reputation to be destroyed like the pathetic Democrats have been doing. You publicly shame them, even though they are beyond shame.

Legion of Logic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Legion of Logic said...

A sexual assault victim who marched against Trump? Why would that ever happen?

Except you have no evidence that she is, other than deciding to believe her over Kavanaugh.

Good thing he's not on trial

Cop-out. There is no justification to believe Kavanaugh did something wrong.

He could have discussed how much he regretted his youthful behavior, how the pain he has caused made him realize the importance of protecting others in society, etc

So now any man accused of something with absolutely no corroborating evidence has to apologize profusely for it in order to gain your respect?

SteveK said...

So now any man accused of something with absolutely no corroborating evidence has to apologize profusely for it in order to gain your respect?

I certainly wouldn't apologize for something I KNOW I didn't do. I don't need or want the respect of someone who demands I do this.

Also...KNOWING that I didn't do what I was accused of doing, I wouldn't ask the FBI to investigate the matter. I don't need any more information.

Legion of Logic said...

It is pathetic that, despite the utter lack of evidence of wrongdoing on Kavanaugh's part, every leftist in the country is by all appearances perfectly content with the conduct of the disgusting Democrat party against him , his reputation, his career, and his family. Democrats have reached a new low, which is hard to believe. If Republicans were doing this against a Democrat nominee, it wouldn't be a blind "I believe her", it would be a constant campaign by Democrats, leftists, and CNN of attacking the inconsistencies and unlikely timing of the revelation to destroy her credibility. As the lack of outrage against Keith Ellison proves, this is not about truth, justice, fairness, or anything other than keeping a Trump nominee from tilting the court right. It's running the clock until Democrats have a chance to (God forbid) take back Congress.

They say Trump is rotten? I see no difference whatsoever.

Dave Duffy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bmiller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bmiller said...

Dave,

Is Judge Kavanaugh really Judge Dredd?

Cool!

Dave Duffy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bmiller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bmiller said...

That's one I'll have to watch when Mrs Duffy is out for the evening.

OK, but you can sneak a peak anyway HERE

Hugo Pelland said...

Since I was unconvinced, I was curious to read more about the whole thing and ask more opinions from individuals who had time to listen to literally hours of hearings and read several articles.

It is pathetic that anyone would think it's a giant hoax against Kavanaugh. I thought maybe he was just a silly frat boy making sexist jokes; turns out he has actually assaulted women and never really stopped being that frat boy who would never fight for women's safety. He doesn't deserve to be a judge when depicting such contempt for victims of sexual abuse, including the ones he violated himself. It doesn't he couldn't be great in other ways, or even a good mentor to some women. But overall, I can't believe his immorality and insensitivity are not deal breakers, regardless of political affiliation.

Legion of Logic said...

Hugo: I thought maybe he was just a silly frat boy making sexist jokes; turns out he has actually assaulted women and never really stopped being that frat boy who would never fight for women's safety. He doesn't deserve to be a judge when depicting such contempt for victims of sexual abuse, including the ones he violated himself.

Too bad there isn't a shred of evidence to justify your opinion. Unless you have some the media hasn't yet reported...?

SteveK said...

Hugo,
Your opinions about the hearings are demonstrably, factually incorrect.

>> "turns out he has actually assaulted women"
The hearing showed that there is no evidence for this. The hearing showed that there are 4 people who attest that Dr. Ford's story is false.

>> "and never really stopped being that frat boy who would never fight for women's safety."
The hearing showed that there is no evidence for this.

>> "He doesn't deserve to be a judge when depicting such contempt for victims of sexual abuse,"
The hearing showed he had respect for them.

Starhopper said...

This article is a near perfect match of my own thoughts on the Kavanaugh hearings. I have seldom read anything that so closely expresses what I myself feel about a subject, both factually and emotionally. I see no reason to paraphrase it in a blog post, so I decided to simply link to it. (It's far better written than anything I could have composed, and it speaks my position with precision.)

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
It is pathetic that, despite the utter lack of evidence of wrongdoing on Kavanaugh's part, every leftist in the country is by all appearances perfectly content with the conduct of the disgusting Democrat party against him , his reputation, his career, and his family.

The good old bitches-be-lying defense. Well done. Tell me again how you don't exhibit the unconscious bias that reinforces gender stereotypes and leads to the continuing undervaluing of women, because you sure sound like everyone else with the unconscious bias that reinforces gender stereotypes and leads to the continuing undervaluing of women.

There be would be one other witness to Kavanaugh's attack on Ford, and he refuses to tesify at all, much less attest for Kavanaugh. For anyone else, it was just some party 36 years ago. Meanwhile, there are 4 witnesses who recall Ford telling them about this years ago, and the Senate won't call them to testify.

Still, your Renate alumnus will be on the SCOTUS soon enough.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
The hearing showed that there is no evidence for this. The hearing showed that there are 4 people who attest that Dr. Ford's story is false.

In every court of law in the land, eyewitness testimony is evidence. For SteveK, eyewitness evidence from a female sexual assault victim is not evidence.

SteveK said...

"In every court of law in the land, eyewitness testimony is evidence."

Of course. In every court, testimony that contradicts what the eyewitness claims is also evidence. We have 4 people attesting that Dr. Fords story is not true.

SteveK said...

One Brow:
"The good old bitches-be-lying defense. Well done."

Don't be a moron. It's that 4 other people have attested that she has some very important details wrong. It's common for this to happen.

"Can you be 'very, very certain' -- and wrong?"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-hearing-very-very-certain-wrong-202229531.html

Dave Duffy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveK said...

Starhopper:
From your article:
1) The most important lie that Kavanaugh told, however, was in his initial testimony. Echoing Thomas’s broken promise to avoid ideology as a judge

2) On Thursday however, Kavanaugh made his partisan inclinations clear.

3) By Kavanaugh’s own standard, he is incapable of sitting on the Court.


He's not acting as a judge here. According to the unhinged and irrational morons at The Atlantic, a judge cannot embrace partisan ideology when he's NOT judging a case. If this were an actual rule, we'd have no justices on any court.

Because this article reflect your own thoughts, it reinforces my prior statement that you are one of most unhinged and irrational people on this blog.

bmiller said...

All this distressing news has jolted my mind into recovering a suppressed memory.

Starhopper groped me in high school. And he liked it! 😱😱😱

Legion of Logic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Legion of Logic said...

One Brow: The good old bitches-be-lying defense.

Never said that. You don't seem to mind embarrassing yourself repeatedly with terrible psychoanalysis.

Tell me again how you don't exhibit the unconscious bias that reinforces gender stereotypes and leads to the continuing undervaluing of women

I don't. And if "believing women" and "valuing women" means abandoning the presumption of innocence, and believing the worst of any accused man as if an accusation is evidence for itself, then yeah I can't "value women". Fortunately, I value women without abandoning the presumption of innocence.

Meanwhile, there are 4 witnesses who recall Ford telling them about this years ago, and the Senate won't call them to testify.

Link?

Legion of Logic said...

Kavanaugh, a man accused of sexual assault with no corroborating evidence (unless One Brow provides my requested link and it proves compelling), gets his reputation absolutely destroyed by Democrats in a ruthless smear campaign designed to run out the clock and keep any Trump nominee off the court, and he's supposed to just take it and not call them out for their disgusting behavior? He was much nicer than I would have been, that's for sure.

SteveK said...

"Starhopper groped me in high school. And he liked it! 😱😱😱

We believe you. I believe victims should be heard so good for you for speaking the truth after all these years. You've got nothing to gain by saying this. It's difficult being a survivor so you have my utmost respect. If Starhopper tries to deny this, Victor should ban him from this blog.

#BeStrongBmiller

bmiller said...

Thanks for the support SteveK. It's not easy living with this.

I think I recall it happened in a house on a street. The house had rooms. It was in one of those rooms where groped me. I definitely recall the room had furniture.

Hugo Pelland said...

I think that was the best summary:
"The good old bitches-be-lying defense. Well done."
I don't know what you read or listned to... but it's pathetic to think they're all lying.

The fact that you guys mock the situation shows that you're perhaps just still some juvenile misogynist frat boys. Were you also part of a fraternity that chants 'No means yes! Yes means anal!' ? Or form flags out of women's underwear?

SteveK said...

Stop lying about what people are saying about the testimony, Hugo.
Are you a Christian by chance?

SteveK said...

If so, knock it off.

Starhopper said...

"Are you a Christian by chance?"

Whether or not one is a Christian appears to have no bearing on this particular issue. If it did, then the self-styled Christians on this blog who still support the nominee would know better - but they don't.

Hugo Pelland said...

SteveK, it's exactly what's happening though and it saddens me. The lack of empathy from the men here is so cruel.

No, not a Christian, and completely irrelevant.

Starhopper said...

Maybe it's time I "outed" myself. Why the hell not?

Here is the full text of an e-mail I just sent to Senator Flake:

Senator Flake,

Although I currently live in Maryland, I grew up in Arizona and still regard it as my "Home State".

I am a 66 year old male, and in defiance of stereotype, am a survivor of sexual assault (it doesn't just happen to women). It was decades before I ever told anyone of my experience. As a child (maybe 10 years old), I was repeatedly abused by a neighbor. Did I report these incidents? I did not. I was too confused, and too embarrassed. As I grew up, I was no longer confused, but I remained (to this day) profoundly embarrassed. I'm not at all sure I even want to be writing these lines. So please do not wonder why people do not immediately go to the authorities when such things happen. From personal knowledge, the experience is searing - especially for a young person.

I listened to Dr. Ford, and I heard myself in her words. When I listened to Judge Kavanaugh, all I could hear was arrogant privilege. "How dare anyone question me?! Just look at my credentials, my good grades, the schools I attended, the powerful people I know! Who are you, worm, to resist me?"

It is within your power to be a voice to the voiceless, the literally millions of victims - women and men both - who have not or can not speak for themselves. Vote NO on Kavanaugh's appointment to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court, where he will be a voice for only the rich and the powerful. Don't they have enough voice already?

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

Even if it was years later and you were older, you should have reported it to the police in order to protect other innocents. They usually don't stop with just one.

What is the name of the person who did it. Did they ever go to jail? I can do some searching if you can give me some more of the details.

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

Too late. He died years ago.

bmiller said...

OK, but that doesn't mean we can't research what happened to him.

It usually runs in the family, so there may be relatives with this perverse condition also.

It's our duty to warn others.

bmiller said...

Just give me the name and address. It was 1962, right?

bmiller said...

Hello?

Starhopper said...

He's dead. God is his judge now. He does not deserve a name in this world.

SteveK said...

Whether or not one is a Christian appears to have no bearing on this particular issue.

Lying about what a person said is the particular issue. It's very relevant.

Hugo Pelland said...

Sorry to hear that Starhopper aka Bob.

Sad to see how your story and those of thousands others don't seem to matter to those who think it's a simple matter of reporting it sooner.

Thank you for sharing.

bmiller said...

He's dead. God is his judge now. He does not deserve a name in this world.

He does not deserve a good name in this world. Let me know who he is and I'll make sure the world knows.

As you can imagine, I'm infuriated with the Catholic Church sex scandal and I want all of the guilty to hang and if dead, to let the world know so the filth can be rooted out.

I'm begging you. Tell me who it is.

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller,

It's quite insensitive to insist that someone reveal the name of an aggressor. Maybe Bob is fine with it but, in general, that's part of the problem with this topic.

And btw, why do you believe him right away, without any other evidence, and are willing to "hang" other accused? What's different with Kavanaugh's accusers?

bmiller said...

You have nothing to fear from your abuser now. So letting the world know his name won't hurt you in any way. It will help other victims of the demonic pedophiles come forward and not just bring the scum to justice, but prevent them from harming new victims.

This lady has a horrific story and the people she names are still alive and powerful.

You can do this.

Legion of Logic said...

If it did, then the self-styled Christians on this blog who still support the nominee would know better - but they don't.

Show me the passage of scripture, the teaching of the Catholic Church (I'm not Catholic but I know many here are and so that would matter to them), a sermon or interview or editorial by a high-profile preacher, anything at all, that exhorts Christians to believe the worst of someone without evidence. An accusation is not evidence.

The lack of empathy from the men here is so cruel.

Empathy means believing the worst of an accused man without evidence?

It's very simple. Ford accused Kavanaugh of a serious action. Whenever anyone makes an accusation this serious against someone else, there is a philosophical standard that the fair-minded utilize in order to attempt to ascertain the truth as best as possible. That standard is the presumption of innocence of the accused until guilt is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every leftist on here is calling Kavanaugh a sexual predator, despite a lack of evidence. Not one of you knows that Kavanaugh ever sexually assaulted anyone. Yet you believe Ford so much you are also willing to judge Kavanaugh guilty and publicly attack him for something you don't even know he did. Not one of you can justify it. You just smear the guy.

You accuse us of a lack of empathy. The problem is that, since NONE OF US knows whether Kavanaugh is guilty of the accusation (and in my opinion, the evidence overwhelmingly points to "no"), empathy doesn't simply mean having blind faith in the utter veracity of every detail of the accusation. It also means considering the possibility that Kavanaugh is actually innocent. It means empathy for the possibility of an innocent being sent through the meat grinder, having his reputation destroyed, and considering what that would be like for him and his family. Empathy means taking the accusation seriously, but it also means not automatically believing the worst of the accused without sufficient evidence to warrant it. There is not even close to sufficient evidence to warrant it in this case. You believe the worst of him for political rationalizations, and you won't admit it. If this was an Obama nominee being smeared by Republicans, you'd all be furious.

To my knowledge, none of us on the right here have said we do not believe Ford is lying about being assaulted. If the others have, then I now only speak for myself. Ford very well may have been sexually assaulted. The issue is, was it KAVANAUGH that did it? Mistaken identity happens all the time. It's not that uncommon these days for the news to run a story where a man imprisoned for decades for rape or murder gets released on new evidence. That's why the philosophical underpinnings we use to determine one's guilt must be fair, not based on picking our favorite side or the one who pulls our heartstrings, blindly believing the accuser or accused (both of which are sexist), or anything except the actual evidence. Empathy for sexual assault victims is very important, and taking their stories seriously is important (though I don't think it should be as public as it often is), but justice cannot favor one side as a foundational principle.

Starhopper said he heard an angry privileged man. When I listened to Kavanaugh, I heard the fury and frustration of what an innocent man might feel if he was being accused of an action he did not commit and was being destroyed for it anyway by an entire political party and many (most? all?) of their voters who have abandoned the presumption of innocence in favor of lynch mobs against preferred targets. That's not empathy. That's not fairness.

Again, the issue is not whether or not Ford was assaulted at some point in her life. The question is, did Kavanaugh do it?

Show me the evidence against him. Demonstrate guilt. If you can't, then my empathy will continue to cover both the one who might have been assaulted and the one who might be innocent.

Starhopper said...

"That standard is the presumption of innocence of the accused until guilt is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt."

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard only in a criminal trial (which this is not - it is a job interview). It is not even the standard in civil cases, where the standard is "reasonable evidence".

"despite a lack of evidence"

Eyewitness testimony IS evidence. Dr. Ford is an eyewitness to the assault made against her.

"the evidence overwhelmingly points to "no""

Really? I haven't seen a shred of evidence that points to a "no". Can you cite even one piece of exonerating evidence?

"Again, the issue is not whether or not Ford was assaulted at some point in her life. The question is, did Kavanaugh do it?"

No, no, NO! The issue is not whether Judge Kavanaugh assaulted Dr. Ford. It is whether he is a good candidate for seating on the Supreme Court. And again I say, his blood vessel popping, conspiracy theory laden, rabidly partisan rant all by itself disqualifies him from such a position.

SteveK said...

Eyewitness testimony IS evidence. Dr. Ford is an eyewitness to the assault made against her.

By this standard, the evidence shows that you groped bmiller. He is an eyewitness to the assault.

bmiller said...

No, no, NO! The issue is not whether Judge Kavanaugh assaulted Dr. Ford. It is whether he is a good candidate for seating on the Supreme Court.

Wait. This doesn't make sense. The reason you gave in your email to Flake was that he should believe Ford, because you were molested by a pedophile as a child.

Why are you now telling us that the alleged assault doesn't matter?

bmiller said...

SteveK,

Eyewitness testimony IS evidence. Dr. Ford is an eyewitness to the assault made against her.

By this standard, the evidence shows that you groped bmiller. He is an eyewitness to the assault.


Forgot to mention that you were there too and saw the whole thing.

Legion of Logic said...

An accusation is an assertion, and an assertion is not evidence for itself. Otherwise no atheist could argue against "God exists".

Kavanaugh was not a judge on the bench. Losing your temper as a man being sorely wronged is not unreasonable. In my opinion, he was too nice to the Democrats.

Far as evidence in his favor goes, look beyond CNN. It is well documented. I mentioned a few of them earlier in the thread.

Meanwhile, accusations are the only evidence against him of which I'm aware. And accusations are not evidence of themselves.

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion,

When you listen to Ford's testimony, and then Kavanaugh's, do you really just believe him? and not her at all? Or is there some more complicated explanation like both being honest but her being mistaken?

The topic came up around her once again, with other friends who listened to the hearings and read a lot about it. And I ended up doing a bit more reading too. It just gives me such a bad impression of Kavanaugh, and I really don't see anything partisan about it. So I'm baffled by how others see it so differently. I'm seriously curious to hear your line of though if you, or others, can reset and explain what they believe or not.

Legion of Logic said...

I don't disbelieve her. I'm not saying she is lying about something bad happening to her, or even lying about Kavanaugh. She could be mistaken that it was him. It could have been him!

But since I wasnt there and I know neither of them, all I can go by is what has been presented. I haven't seen enough to condemn the man.

I've not compiled all the reasons I feel this way, but will attempt to do so within the next couple days.

Hugo Pelland said...

Ok, what you just said now is fair I believe.

But it does contrast a bit with calling the whole thing BS... so it will be interesting to see how your opinion changes after reviewing more of the testimonials, and why it changes one way or another.

Starhopper said...

"look beyond CNN"

You've probably forgotten, but I've posted before (on other threads) that I do not own a television, so I don't watch CNN. I watched the hearings on C-SPAN online. I think you'll agree that that source is scrupulously non-partisan.

Hugo Pelland said...

Yes that point about CNN is relevant! I would also add that what really informs my opinion of Kavanaugh the most is not some analysis from journalists; it is listening to Kavanaugh himself speak for several minutes, unfiltered, on several questions. And for the sexual assault charges specifically, it's about both his testimony and Ford's directly, at length, without commentary.

Legion of Logic said...

<> But it does contrast a bit with calling the whole thing BS

What I find BS isn't the accusation itself or anything to do with Ford. I'm disgusted by the behavior of the Democrats and their quest to destroy Kavanaugh, without having enough evidence to justify doing so. They don't know he's guilty, so this is not even remotely acceptable behavior on their part.

Starhopper said...

"They don't know he's guilty"

But they do know (especially after his last testimony) that he's temperamentally unfit to serve on the Supreme Court, and that's all that matters.

They would be derelict in their constitutional duty to not oppose his confirmation.

Legion of Logic said...

So they should just get to abuse him and destroy his reputation, and he should pretend he's on the bench and be all neutral about his own life? I completely disagree.

If Kavanaugh is unfit for getting upset at their disgusting behavior, then every Democrat in that committee should be forced out immediately for being catastrophically unfit.

Starhopper said...

Interesting difference of perspective here. I have noticed nothing even remotely "disgusting" in the behavior of the Democrats on the committee. I actually applaud their admirable restraint. On the other hand, the blatant hypocrisy of the Republicans railroading this nomination through on a totally arbitrary timeline (which is transparently constructed to avoid having to deal with a possible (Probable? One can only hope.) Democratically controlled Senate after November) when they failed to even bring Merrick Garland's nomination up for debate for months is palpable.

Hal said...

The link below is to one of the best articles I've seen showing why Kavanaugh should not be appointed to the Supreme Court:

How we know Kavanaugh is lying

bmiller said...

Well, the FBI investigation may not go the way the minority party wants it to go.

Trump seems to think so.

“I think frankly the FBI has a chance to reveal a lot of different things. I’d like to find out who leaked the papers. Was it Sen. Feinstein?” he said, referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Certainly her body language was not exactly very good when they asked her that question.”

Hal said...

Well, the reporter who broke the story says it did not come from Feinstein's office.

Here

Legion of Logic said...

I actually applaud their admirable restraint.

...Wow.

SteveK said...

Ok, what you just said now is fair I believe.

Legion said exactly what I would have said had anyone asked the question you asked. Thank you for being the ONLY PERSON here to ask for an explanation. Progress.

SteveK said...

One other aspect that I consider in these situations is a person's overall life. I give greater weight to their recent life and less weight to their past life for the reason that recent life tells me the trajectory of their life. Is it a drastic improvement, a drastic downward spiral or fairly consistent. It goes without saying that a person's recent life is closer to where they will end up - either temporarily or permanently - because they are living it now.

I take Kavanaugh out of the situation and ask myself a hypothetical question: "what would I think of a person who assaulted someone 35 years ago but hasn't done anything like that since and now has a great reputation that many people admire and can attest to?"

I think of my friends and co-workers. Would I suddenly think they are a different person if I learned of their past? No, I wouldn't. I would think they are the person I've known for the past 8, 10, 15 years. In the case of a stranger, I would think they are the person that everyone is attesting to - a person with a great reputation who is admired by many. Could everyone be wrong about the person? Of course, yes, but nobody KNOWS that they are wrong.

This is the way I look at these things. You may look at them in an entirely different way. That's fine. There's no objective way to settle the issue so I'm not going to bother arguing if my way is the correct way.

Legion of Logic said...

"There's no objective way to settle the issue so I'm not going to bother arguing if my way is the correct way."

We could easily have predicted which of us on this blog would believe the worst of Kavanaugh or uphold the presumption of innocence simply by political leaning. We can also predict the explanations each side would give, and those explanations would just so happen to find fault with the way the other guys think.

If I was to go back to college for a degree in psychology or sociology (which would make me a very rare demographic in those fields), I would love to do a study on whether it is political leaning that shapes our perceptions, or if it is our perceptions that shape our political leaning. The near foolproof predictability of a belief or reaction using nothing but political leaning is truly remarkable to me.

bmiller said...

I'm pretty sure if you went back to college for study in those fields you would find a lot out about Marxist theory.

You would also find out the idea of "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" have been done away with a long time ago when it comes to a women accusing a man. Lot's of male students kicked out with only an accusation.

Hugo Pelland said...

Regarding due process, here's something I read on Facebook:

"I’m seeing a bunch of pseudo-lawyer speak on my Facebook feed. I just want to clarify a few things.

1. The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.

2. Kavanaugh is not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. No one has to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

3. Kavanaugh is not entitled to any “due process” during these confirmation hearings. The term “due process” refers to the general principle that the United States government can’t take away your rights or property without a legal proceeding—i.e. notice and a hearing. Here, the United States is not attempting to take away Kavanaugh’s rights or property. They’re not trying to take away anything at all. Rather they are determining whether to BESTOW upon Kavanaugh the highest legal position in the country. Kavanaugh has no implicit right to this position. He is not entitled to fair hearing. He is not entitled to any hearing at all.

4. Kavanaugh’s life won’t be “destroyed” by this confirmation process. At worst, he’ll remain a Federal Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ford’s testimony may trigger a subsequent criminal or impeachment process, but those are both different sets of proceedings, with higher standards of proof and more legal protections for Kavanaugh.

5. The Rules of Evidence do not apply. Senators can ask whatever they want. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford is entitled to any of the protections typically given to fact witnesses.

6. Some Senators, like Lindsey Graham, are using the standards of the criminal/civil justice system as a talking point. The argument is that, there isn’t enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh; there isn’t enough evidence to obtain a warrant; there isn’t enough evidence to justify a civil charge; therefore, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.

Now, let’s say I was going to hire a guy to cut my lawn. But then, I got a call from three separate women claiming that this guy had sexually assaulted them all. I’d be deeply concerned. Maybe there's a chance that these three women had engaged in a coordinated and nefarious effort to wrongly discredit the guy. And sure, maybe the guy had never been convicted of any form of sexual assault.

But I STILL probably wouldn’t hire the guy. There’s plenty of other people who are perfectly qualified to cut my lawn.

Issues of due process, and considering whether declining to hire the guy would “destroy” his life wouldn't be a part of my decision at all."

SteveK said...

Legion,
We could easily have predicted which of us on this blog would believe the worst of Kavanaugh or uphold the presumption of innocence simply by political leaning.

Here on this blog, the accuracy of your statement is Starhopper's recent comment "I have noticed nothing even remotely "disgusting" in the behavior of the Democrats on the committee"

Nothing disgusting.

Here we have a committee INTENT on defining Kavanaugh as a person - as a judge - based on one non-judicial event that occurred 35 years ago. As I said above, even if true it doesn't define the man anymore than that time Starhopper stole money from his mother's purse defines him as an ongoing criminal worthy to be treated as an untrustworthy person from this day forward.

I'm sure Starhopper doesn't want to be defined by his worst behavior from 35 years ago and I'm sure Starhopper would get emotional and angry if a group of people were publicly intent on making sure everyone thought of him in those terms. I'm sure he would refer to such tactics as 'disgusting'.

Starhopper said...

All good points, Hugo.

But what some of the others in this conversation still don't get (or just don't want to address) is that whether or not Kavanaugh assaulted women in high school and/or college, although reprehensible, is not the main point. The real issue is that he has convincingly demonstrated in his speech on Thursday that he is not capable of being an impartial judge. He harbors a deep seated bias against Democrats, engages in conspiracy theory thinking, and will seek revenge for perceived wrongs ("What goes around comes around!" His words.). We do not need a biased judge on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh is demonstrably unfit for the job, even if he never so much as looked funny at a girl.

SteveK said...

Now, let’s say I was going to hire a guy to cut my lawn. But then, I got a call from three separate women claiming that this guy had sexually assaulted them all.

From 35 years ago? Do you have the letters from dozens of people attesting to his good character since that time? Do you have the 6 FBI background checks on him? Do you have the highest recommendation from the American Lawn Cutter's Association, from countless neighbors and peers?

If you do have this information then I see no rational reason to avoid hiring this man. You are attempting to define who he is today - not based on information from today - but based on information from 35 years ago. You fear the man from 35 years ago and are ignoring the man in front of you today.

Would you want that done to you? A simple yes or no answer would be nice.

SteveK said...

The real issue is that he has convincingly demonstrated in his speech on Thursday that he is not capable of being an impartial judge.

Once again, reality proves your wrong

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

Issues of due process, and considering whether declining to hire the guy would “destroy” his life wouldn't be a part of my decision at all."

Well if you have no interest in basic fairness, then you have no reason to expect "fairness" from the opposing side even though they have gone to extraordinary lengths to be fair. The hearing was over.

bmiller said...

Does anyone really think that short of an assassination of Kavanaugh or a Republican senator that he won't be confirmed next week?

Starhopper said...

I think there is a 50-50 chance that 2 Republican senators will vote no.

Legion of Logic said...

But what some of the others in this conversation still don't get (or just don't want to address) is that... he has convincingly demonstrated in his speech on Thursday that he is not capable of being an impartial judge.

He demonstrated no such thing. Democrats have demonstrated an inability to be impartial judges in this matter, but not Kavanaugh.

Pathetic Democrats have disgraced themselves by doing everything they can to not only treat Kavanaugh like they KNOW he is a sexual predator, but they are trying to convince the rest of the country to do the same (and it worked on your half). Any innocent man would be royally pissed off, and if he is indeed innocent, then he was TOO NICE to them. He wasn't a judge on the bench deciding a case, he was a potentially innocent man whose reputation had been destroyed by those (dare I say evil?) senators with the audacity to question HIS conduct in as overtly biased a manner as possible. He had every right to call them out on it.

So, at best we have, if innocent, an understandably and justifiably furious man who is absolutely incensed at how the Democrats have treated him, and rightly called them out on it. At worst, if he is guilty of the accusation, then he is not fit due to lying under oath, but the attack on the Democrats would have been a return political salvo designed to counter their attacks. Either way, his ability to be impartial on the bench is not in question, as SteveK's link from the Bar Association shows. A lifetime of work lauded by peers is more telling than a biased interpretation of one event in which you refuse to imagine what an innocent man would be feeling about how those pathetic senators have behaved.

think there is a 50-50 chance that 2 Republican senators will vote no.

I think more 60-40 that he will not be confirmed.

Quite frankly, due to what they did to Garland, Republicans deserve to lose this one. On the other hand, Democrats deserve Kavanaugh. I warned my conservative buddies who snickered over how Republicans behaved in denying Garland even a hearing that the Democrats would stoop even lower next time they got a chance. Lo and behold...

Legion of Logic said...

The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.


I've never been to a job interview where the interviewers tried to convince half the country that I was a sexual predator unfit to do the job I ALREADY had, and succeeded with half. The fallout isn't merely not getting a job, which is why the higher standard is appropriate.

Joe Hinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said...

Metacrock's blog



Phenomenology offers an alternative science in relation to understanding what it means to be. Understanding phenomenology is important for understanding the theology of Paul Tillich, But especially the phenomenology of Heidegger because he influenced Tillich.

Heidegger deals with objects, aspects of our perceptions in being as we live our lives, in the way that fish regard water, as something so close to us, so all pervasive, so fundamental to existence that we don’t even notice it. Perhaps one of the best examples of this is his concept of “ready-to-hand.” Or an even better example would be the carpenter who is so use to his tools the use of them is second nature.

One Brow said...

Blogger SteveK said...
Of course. In every court, testimony that contradicts what the eyewitness claims is also evidence. We have 4 people attesting that Dr. Fords story is not true.

We have three people who don't remember such a party 36 years later (and why would they?), and one who was also involved in the assault denying it.

One Brow said...

Never said that. You don't seem to mind embarrassing yourself repeatedly with terrible psychoanalysis.

No psychoanalysis. Just noting that you don't consider the testimony of a woman who was sexually assaulted to be evidence, as you have eyewitness testimony and describe that as an "utter lack of evidence".

I don't. And if "believing women" and "valuing women" means abandoning the presumption of innocence, and believing the worst of any accused man as if an accusation is evidence for itself, then yeah I can't "value women".

Can you name any other crime for which you discount the testimony of the victim entirely? Which ones?

Fortunately, I value women without abandoning the presumption of innocence.

Of course. You just don't believe in their ability to tell the truth about sexual assault. You value them in other ways, no doubt.

Meanwhile, there are 4 witnesses who recall Ford telling them about this years ago, and the Senate won't call them to testify.

Link?


The very first Google result:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-told-four-people-sexual-assault-claims/1429270002/

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
I take Kavanaugh out of the situation and ask myself a hypothetical question: "what would I think of a person who assaulted someone 35 years ago but hasn't done anything like that since and now has a great reputation that many people admire and can attest to?"

How badly are they lying about what happened 35 years ago? Are they honest and repentant? That is part of what speaks to their character today.

SteveK said...

How badly are they lying about what happened 35 years ago? Are they honest and repentant? That is part of what speaks to their character today.

I do consider this. If someone was intent on making 350 million people (in truth, the world) think I am the person from 35 years ago for political gain, I'd thwart that intent because it's a lie and it would result in great damage to my life. I'm not that person today so it's a form of slander.

SteveK said...

Related to my last comment, here are some questions that I personally would want answered.

Why do you want me to admit to engaging in certain behaviors from 35 years ago when that behavior doesn't reflect who I am today AND it's not relevant to any law?

Explain why you NEED to have this information and tell me what you plan do with it.

Will you consider both good and bad behaviors from 35 years ago and give them equal weighting and equal public exposure?

Hugo Pelland said...

Stevek, if behaviors from 35 years ago don't represent who they are today, it shouldn't be hard to explain that. That's the difference with Cory Booker, for instance, from the article that bmiller linked to above.

A lot has changed in 35 years when it comes to what we consider respectful/acceptable behavior, both in general and towards women. That's why some folks whine about excessive political correctness... sometimes they're right imho, but in general they just don't want to adapt.

Kavanaugh could have used the opportunity to express his support to victim of sexual abuse, how fraternities aren't always great molds for young men, etc... he did the opposite be it directly or indirectly.

Starhopper said...

I'm curious, SteveK. Why are you so anxious to see this guy on the Supreme Court? What's your dog in this fight?

SteveK said...

Starhopper
I'm anxious to have a person judged fairly based on the merits. That's my dog. My principles have nothing to do with Kavanaugh. I've never objected to any SCOTUS nominee that has the legal qualifications - as I think they all have. I've disagreed with policy and/or politics but not qualifications.

What's your dog? Why are you so anxious to know what happened 35 years ago when TODAY he's qualified to sit on the court? Hmmm???

SteveK said...

Hugo,
Stevek, if behaviors from 35 years ago don't represent who they are today, it shouldn't be hard to explain that

First you need to explain why the person needs to tell you anything about their distant past. It's not relevant to who the person is today, so why do you need to know? Here's an example

Explain how knowledge of a person stealing money from mother's purse at age 16 is useful to you when you know that they are now 50 years old and they've never stolen money since?

I truly don't understand what you are doing with this information.

Hugo Pelland said...

"First you need to explain why the person needs to tell you anything about their distant past."

Because someone risked her reputation, her life, to go through the painful experience of explaining publically how she has been sexually abuse by the person.

SteveK said...

Hugo,
That doesn't explain why the other person NEEDS to say anything in public if they don't want to. Maybe they are embarrassed or frightened of what will happen to them if they say anything. It's the reverse of the victim being told they need to report the crime.

SteveK said...

Hugo,
If your mom risks looking like an irresponsible mother and announces on CNN that you stole money out of her purse one day at age 16, are you obligated to go on CNN at age 50 and explain yourself? I don't think you are.

Would you want to know why your mother brought this up 35 years later when it's irrelevant to today? I would want to know. If she said that telling the story made her feel better then okay I can accept that. If she said that she wanted me to pay a price of some kind, then I'm not okay with that.

Hugo Pelland said...

Well, we're talking about a SCOTUS nominee here... so I am not sure I get your point. It's not something that can be generalized that easily. Because, sure, nobody should be forced to say anything in public, but we're talking about a lifetime appointee to the highest court of the country. Every single detail matters.

SteveK said...

Why does this information matter when it doesn't apply to who he is today and he's deemed qualified for the job? I truly don't understand the logic. This goes for everyone, not just Kavanaugh.

SteveK said...

Speaking of other people, as much as I dislike Hillary's politics I think it would be very unfair to judge her by what she did when she was 17. It's stupid.

Hugo Pelland said...

I agree that he seems qualified for the job, generally speaking; the article that was linked to above does a good job at showing how he applied the law.

But again, being a SCOTUS is a lot more than just that I believe, as they don't just apply the law, they can change it. The bar is not just a bit higher because it's the next level, it is much much higher because it's a lifetime appointment with enormous responsibilities. The moral character of individuals matter tremendously. The formative years of that individual, yes including when they were just 17, matter, especially if there are indications that the trend continued beyond those years, for instance: The Boys’ Club That Protects Brett Kavanaugh
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-boys-club-that-protects-brett-kavanaugh

Regarding Hillary as a parallel, I disagree for 2 reasons. First, I think it would matter for the POTUS as well, as it's yet another critical position. But I at the same time, I also disagree with using this as a parallel because I think the bar is actually higher for SCOTUS than POTUS, when it comes to that specific investigation into moral judgement. I don't care as much about Trump's sketchy past sexual adventures, for instance, I dislike him for completely different reasons, but if he were to be judged as a potential SCOTUS, there are tons of things in his past that would make him unfit to be one of the most important judge in the country.

Starhopper said...

"Why are you so anxious to know what happened 35 years ago when TODAY he's qualified to sit on the court? Hmmm???"

You must be asking somebody else. I've repeatedly written here that it is irrelevant to me whether or not Kavanaugh is guilty of the allegations against him, because his demeanor (and exhibit A is that rabidly partisan, conspiracy theory laden, revenge seeking speech he gave on Thursday) demonstrates that he is in no way suitable for seating on our nation's highest court. In fact, I've come around to thinking that he shouldn't be a judge at all. He has shown himself to be incapable of being impartial.

SteveK said...

He has shown himself to be incapable of being impartial.

He was not acting as a judge where impartiality is demanded. Anyway, it's nice to hear you get the facts wrong once again. You really are unhinged and irrational - and apparently dumb enough to repeat the same error on the same blog post within the span of a few days. Thanks for reminding us who you are.

Starhopper said...

"He was not acting as a judge where impartiality is demanded."

Of course he wasn't. But what he was doing was revealing his innermost character for all the world to see. And it was most definitely NOT the character of someone we want to be seated on the Supreme Court.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

Your abuse story has deeply affected me.

I have had time to consider the course of action I should take now that I know a disgusting crime has been committed against you. I now know it would be wrong for me to investigate this personally. You were right. But I do want to know that I did what I could to seek justice for you and other possible victims. I've decided to report it to the FBI.

I hesitated at first to report a crime if you hadn't. But then I thought about it and realized that when you sent that email to Senator Flake you have already reported the crime to the Federal Government.

https://tips.fbi.gov/

I'll attach you email to Senator Flake and pledge to cooperate fully in the investigation.

Legion of Logic said...

In fact, I've come around to thinking that he shouldn't be a judge at all. He has shown himself to be incapable of being impartial.

The American Bar Association disagrees with you, as does reality.

This is exactly what those pathetic, evil Democrats wanted from you. And PRECISELY what will happen to him if Democrats get their way. So to all of you who say that Kavanaugh's life isn't being ruined by this - Exhibit A, Starhopper.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
I do consider this. If someone was intent on making 350 million people (in truth, the world) think I am the person from 35 years ago for political gain, I'd thwart that intent because it's a lie and it would result in great damage to my life. I'm not that person today so it's a form of slander.

Does that justify you lying about who you used to be, under oath?

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
Why do you want me to admit to engaging in certain behaviors from 35 years ago when that behavior doesn't reflect who I am today AND it's not relevant to any law?

To ask why you changed in that regard, of course. Was it that you thought you didn't do anything wrong but got bored, did you experience a sudden or gradual sense of the harm you were causing, etc. Do you think the reason you stopped matters?

One Brow said...

The American Bar Association disagrees with you, as does reality.

It would be interesting if you spok for reality, but you don't speak for the ABA.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html

Legion of Logic said...

Little something about my past that, as I thought about this over the weekend, I realized might be influencing my perception here.

I went through a very ugly divorce. My ex wife came from an abusive household, where verbal and physical abuse was the preferred method of venting anger. Unfortunately, that same tendency arose in her during our marriage. During the divorce, which involved custody of our two children, she threatened me with accusing me of physical abuse, despite the fact that I never once struck her, if I hired a lawyer. I did not want to risk seeing my children, as I had absolutely no way to disprove the accusation other than the word of others who could speak to my character but were not present in the house (no one knew I had marital problems until we separated because I did not want to speak of it), so I caved. Cost me financial independence, a home of my own, and over a third of my income in child support for over three years, despite the fact that I had my kids six days a week and two nights a week, not to mention feeding them daily, doing all their school routines, etc.

In addition, my son has autism, and on his permanent medical records she listed that I had physically abused her during pregnancy with my son, which is a bald-faced lie. So for years, every time I spoke with a therapist or teacher of my son's, they looked at me having read that I was a monster, even though I had NEVER DONE THAT.

Recently I managed to take her back to court and reduce the child support by half, and while I was not able to get the false accusation out of my son's medical records, I managed to get it altered so that it was described as an allegation from the mother, and not a fact.

So yeah, I know what false accusations can do. I know the fury and frustration of having my reputation smeared long-term over something I did not do. If I'd been in court regarding those medical records, I don't know that I could have maintained my composure either, and that's without national repercussions, of having half the country believing I am a woman abuser based entirely on a false accusation.

I have absolutely no tolerance for destroying a man's reputation without just cause, on an assertion without sufficient corroborating evidence. I have no tolerance for people spreading lies about a man's conduct. What the Democrats are doing to Kavanaugh is EVIL, plain and simple, even if he is GUILTY of the accusation, because they themselves don't care if he is or not.

Legion of Logic said...

One Brow, thank you for providing a link that does nothing to question Kavanaugh's impartiality throughout his career. As your linked article says:

"For 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the D.C. Circuit has praised my judicial temperament," Kavanaugh said Thursday. "That's why I have the unanimous, well qualified rating from the American Bar Association."

So again, thank you for demonstrating my point.

Hugo Pelland said...

ABA:
In a strongly worded letter obtained by CNN Thursday, the organization said it is making the extraordinary request "because of the ABA's respect for the rule of law and due process under law," siding with concerns voiced by Senate Democrats since Christine Blasey Ford's decades-old allegations became public.

LEGION OF LOGIC:
I call complete BS.

Hugo Pelland said...

Are you sure that proved your point?

bmiller said...

We are in a hurricane of fake news.

The present ABA position as an organization hasn't changed


@senatejudiciary

“The correspondence by Robert Carlson, President of the American Bar Association...was not received by the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary prior to its issuance...The ABA’s rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. Carlson’s letter.”

Pretty naughty of CNN to not correct it's story don't you think?

Hugo Pelland said...

Yep, good point. I hope they make that new information available. It just came out today apparently.

But, not sure whether the rating not changing and the request for investigation contradict each other. Does it?

bmiller said...

Hugo,

Yep, good point. I hope they make that new information available. It just came out today apparently.

That's nonsense. There never was a new statement by the ABA nor a request from the ABA for an investigation. So CNN is generating false news.

This is the CNN headline and it was reported Thursday.

American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations

The reporter from CNN either doesn't know how the ABA works in which case he is incredibly incompetent, or he and bosses at CNN do know and choose to continue to lie to the mushrooms that still listen.

Hugo Pelland said...

Wow, even when I agree with you you find ways to be annoying

bmiller said...

Hugo,

Did you read my response regarding the facts of the situation.

You said the information just came out today. The reality is that the CNN story was fake and came out Thursday.

Sorry if you find facts annoying.

Legion of Logic said...

Hugo, my point was that the ABA has not changed its position on Kavanaugh's conduct as a judge. That has nothing to do with the ABA supporting an FBI investigation - even if the article was correct.

One Brow said...

Blogger Legion of Logic said...
I went through a very ugly divorce. ...

So yeah, I know what false accusations can do.


I am very sorry to hear of your experiences. I believe you.

Had Kavanaugh and Ford been in any sort of long-term relationship, that would absolutely color my perception of Ford's possible motives for coming forward, and therefore her credibility. However, they were not, and Ford does not have the same motive as your wife to lie about this. For Ford, her accusation has no real upside, unlike for your ex-wife.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Pretty naughty of CNN to not correct it's story don't you think?

Was the initial story inaccurate in some manner? The CNN story says the letter came from the ABA President, not the Standing Committee.

Starhopper said...

Maybe we need to tone it down a bit, and have a good laugh at all this. Might I suggest this?

Priceless!

SteveK said...

Does that justify you lying about who you used to be, under oath?

I'm thwarting an attempt to slander a person for political gain. I think so.

Legion of Logic said...

<> However, they were not, and Ford does not have the same motive as your wife to lie about this. For Ford, her accusation has no real upside, unlike for your ex-wife.

Agreed. But since mistaken identities do happen, it must still be demonstrated to have been Kavanaugh and not someone else.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
I'm thwarting an attempt to slander a person for political gain. I think so.

In your hypothetical, it's true, so not slander. Still, thank you for telling us you wouldn't let a little thing like perjury stand in the way of getting power.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Agreed. But since mistaken identities do happen, it must still be demonstrated to have been Kavanaugh and not someone else.

What reason do you have for believing this was a mistaken identity?

wise son said...

Hello to all,I am new here,just read Dr. Reppert's excellent work. I am a "Christian Social Democrat", I ask to any and all how can a believer not live and think in terms of community? How can a believer not recognize the loving gains made by the populous movement,civil rights movement etc. ?

wise son said...

When did Christianity become linked to hedonism?

bmiller said...

@wise son,

Are you a russian bot?

Legion of Logic said...

What reason do you have for believing this was a mistaken identity?

It would be far too strong wording to say I believe it is.

SteveK said...

One Brow
A couple points regarding your statement about perjury.

1. This is a job interview not a criminal hearing. There is no crime. The purpose of the job interview is to determine if a man is suitable to do a particular job.

2. An oath to tell the truth only applies materially relevant statements. I could openly lie about what I had for dinner while under oath if what I had for dinner had nothing to do with the case. It’s not perjury.

3. The generally-accepted legal definition of “material” is “relevant and goes to the substantial matters in dispute, or has a legitimate and effective influence or bearing on the decision of the case.”

4. Given that Kavanaugh has already been deemed a suitable judge worthy of SCOTUS, and given that the FBI has performed 6 background investigations on the man’s personal life, and given that private interviews were held with senators, I think they can answer the question “is he suitable for the job?”

5. Because we have enough information already, questions about what happened 35 years ago are immaterial, thus no perjury occurred.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
A couple points regarding your statement about perjury.

I could go through your points individually, but since IANAL, it would not be authoritative. My understanding is that lying during Congressional testimony is perjury, or something similar. I understand that you have decided to excuse the various lies Kavanaugh has told while testifying before the Senate committee as not being material. I think it's sad you feel lying to get a seat on SCOTUS is an acceptable tactic. To each their own.

bmiller said...

No lies. No perjury.

SteveK said...

What bmiller said.

But you’re wrong about perjury. Here’s the relevant section of the law that references “material matter”

“in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;”

wise son said...

No.Hilarious, I am not communist nor atheist for that matter,just a supernaturalist who sees a need to fight for socio-political economic fairness before I see the Lord in the air with myriad heavenly host

SteveK said...

One Brow,
Let me ask a simple question that I think gets to the heart of my complaint.

For you personally, how far back in time would a complete stranger need to gather information in order to come to an accurate representation of your character and abilities?

bmiller said...

@wise son,

Your posts sound like AI generated language. Can you prove you aren't a bot.

bmiller said...

@wise son,

I hate bots.

The last bot I caught, I shot on the spot. Stuck him in a pot and boiled him till he was hot. Then I let him rot.

Starhopper said...

And that's sayin' a lot!

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller said:
" Hugo,

Did you read my response regarding the facts of the situation.

You said the information just came out today. The reality is that the CNN story was fake and came out Thursday.

Sorry if you find facts annoying.
"

Again, it seems to me that I agree with you on the fact; but here's the timeline you didn't mention:
- The original CNN article was on the 27th
- The letter from the ABA's standing committee was on the 28th,
- The article you linked to was from the 1st
And now CNN has actually updated their article, today apparently. So whining about "fake news" for something that happened after the original CNN article was silly. CNN could be more clear I think, but they did add the mention of how the ABA's standing committee, which acts independently, hasn't changed. It's the ABA's leadership who published the letter urging for more investigation. Again, they could make this more clear, but I don't see what it changes.

So, facts being annoying? No.
Whining "fake news!" and misrepresenting a timeline? Ya, that's annoying.

bmiller said...

Hugo,

So, facts being annoying? No.
Whining "fake news!" and misrepresenting a timeline? Ya, that's annoying.


I did not misrepresent anything. There was exactly one recommendation from the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, no recommendation to delay confirmation at all, and one letter to clarify the fake news going around.

The Senate asks for advice from the ABA from the non-partisan Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. When they were called to testify, they stated Kavanaugh was "'well qualified' rating: Kavanaugh has 'an excellent reputation for integrity'" according the the headline in the abajournal.

This was on September 7th.

We can trust the committee because it's goal is to be non-partisan. The non-partisan committee did not recommend a delay to the Kavanaugh confirmation. Someone else did, not the relevant committee. The relevant committee also did not change their recommendation. Ever.

The next communication of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to the Senate Judiciary was September 28th to correct the CNN fake news that gave the impression that Carlson's letter was the position of the committee or that he even contacted them to let them know he was going to send it.

The fake news was giving the false impression that the relevant body within the ABA was making a recommendation that it did not indeed make.

I think, but they did add the mention of how the ABA's standing committee, which acts independently, hasn't changed.

Quote please. I couldn't find it.

The article as it still stands today gives the average reader the impression that the ABA committee that is responsible for the recommendation is now reconsidering it's recommendation until this "delay" is over. The article afaik doesn't mention the second letter from the committee correcting that mis-impression.

I salute you for being honest enough to admit that the CNN story gave you the wrong impression. If you had no background knowledge and just read the CNN article today would you still end up with that impression. Because I can't see any material difference between the story now and when it was first published.

bmiller said...

And that's sayin' a lot!

That's what I thought.

Hugo Pelland said...

Well said bmiller,

To clarify what I meant, the article now states:
"The comments are striking because the organization gave Kavanaugh its highest rating of unanimous, "well-qualified" for the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh himself touted that rating at Thursday's emotionally-charged hearing where he denied Ford's sworn testimony that he attempted to rape her when they were teenagers.
Kavanaugh noted he was "thoroughly vetted" by the ABA.
"For 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the D.C. Circuit has praised my judicial temperament," Kavanaugh said Thursday. "That's why I have the unanimous, well qualified rating from the American Bar Association.""


I don't think all of that was there before, and it's still misleading because of the distinction between the ABA's leadership and its independent review committee, which is not even names in that article.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
No lies. No perjury.

If you mean that as a conditional 'no lies implies no perjury', then I agree. If you meant that as a description of Kavanaugh's testimony, you are factually incorrect.

Just one example is , "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation", when he attendeded such a gathering on July 1 of that year in his calendar, listing all the boys Ford mentions in her testimony.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
Let me ask a simple question that I think gets to the heart of my complaint.

For you personally, how far back in time would a complete stranger need to gather information in order to come to an accurate representation of your character and abilities?


No limit. However, the real answer, which I gave you before, is not how far back you go, it's how those experiences have shaped the man you are today. What do you regret, why do you regret it, and how did it change you. I see no evidence Kavanaugh regrets anything or learned anything important from his activities.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
The next communication of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to the Senate Judiciary was September 28th to correct the CNN fake news that gave the impression that Carlson's letter was the position of the committee or that he even contacted them to let them know he was going to send it.

The version of the CNN article I read specifically said the letter came from the ABA president. Was there a version of the article that did not mention that?

Hugo Pelland said...

One Brow,

It was updated today according to the tag on it. Not sure what it didn't say before but I think it has to do with the quote I included above.

Doesn't change much imho, but it's always important to be factually accurate obviously, which isn't always the case with any news source.

SteveK said...

One Brow,
However, the real answer, which I gave you before, is not how far back you go, it's how those experiences have shaped the man you are today. What do you regret, why do you regret it, and how did it change you. I see no evidence Kavanaugh regrets anything or learned anything important from his activities.

How you became the person you are is different than who you are.

Do I need to know that you stole some food at the store when you were 13 y/o and later apologized to the store owner because you were remorseful before I am able to form an accurate picture of your character and abilities today? No, I don't. It's irrelevant. I can formulate a fair picture of your moral character today without this information.

How you became the person you are gives me information about your general life trajectory. Relative to your younger self, are you now a person with better or worse character? I can get a sense of that trajectory if I go back just a few short years.

Ironically for you, if we assume Kavanaugh did the accused act it means his moral trajectory swings upward since that time 35 years ago. We'd say he improved his life since that time and no longer exhibits this behavior. We'd say he has better moral character today compared to back then.

Legion of Logic said...

What do you regret, why do you regret it, and how did it change you. I see no evidence Kavanaugh regrets anything or learned anything important from his activities.

What did you learn from things you did not do? I mean, since none of us here knows whether he did this or not, how can this even possibly be a fair criticism? It's based on an assumption.

SteveK said...

Legion,
It's based on an assumption.

This is true. In my last comment I went through with the assumption that it happened and concluded that society would say he is a better person now. So One Brow is wrong even in that hypothetical case.

bmiller said...

Hugo,

I honestly can't see what they updated in the article.

Headline:
"American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations"

Paragraph 1:
"The American Bar Association is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to halt the consideration of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until an FBI investigation is completed into the sexual assault allegations that have roiled his nomination."

Paragrah 2:
"In a strongly worded letter obtained by CNN Thursday, the organization said it is making the extraordinary request...."

Paragraph 3:
""The basic principles that underscore the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI," said Robert Carlson, president of the organization, in a Thursday night letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein."

So yes, it does mention the letter was sent by the president of the ABA finally (this is called burying the lead) and still even most people would think the recommending body has requested a delay. It did not, and in fact the wording of the letter the ABA Standing Committee sent to the Judiciary Committee indicates a public rebuke to the ABA president of going rougue.

Legion of Logic said...

Apparently there's a story out that Ford lied under oath about whether she has ever coached anyone on polygraph tests, along with other issues like flying fears. If so, wonder what else she may have lied about under oath?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm.amp

And the circus continues.

Hugo Pelland said...

Ex-boyfriend's recollection of benign facts from 20 years ago: belivable.

Woman's traumatic recollection of sexual assault 30 years ago: unbelievable.

Got it.

Hugo Pelland said...

@bmiller,
Still not sure what your point is...

Legion of Logic said...

I'm left scratching my head on that one, Hugo. I never said I believed it more or less.

What about you? You believe he is lying? If so, why?

Hugo Pelland said...

You said "If so, wonder what else she may have lied about under oath?". What did that imply?

Legion of Logic said...

That "if so", meaning if it turns out to be true that she lied under oath, then every word she said is suspect.
Conversely, if it does not turn out to be true, then no harm done.

I did not take a position on its accuracy. Just throwing out the new development as a way of showing how ludicrous this whole situation is, which is why I called it a circus.

One Brow said...

Hugo Pelland said...
It was updated today according to the tag on it. Not sure what it didn't say before but I think it has to do with the quote I included above.

The mention of the ABA President was there a couple of days of ago when I posted the link.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
Do I need to know that you stole some food at the store when you were 13 y/o and later apologized to the store owner because you were remorseful before I am able to form an accurate picture of your character and abilities today? No, I don't. It's irrelevant.

If you know that I stole the food, and am I not remorseful for it today, is that relevant?

Ironically for you, if we assume Kavanaugh did the accused act it means his moral trajectory swings upward since that time 35 years ago. We'd say he improved his life since that time and no longer exhibits this behavior. We'd say he has better moral character today compared to back then.

Or that he's better at hiding his activities or that he just got bored with them but doesn't think there's anything wrong with them. You don't know reason for the change unless you ask about it.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
It's based on an assumption.

For what other class of crimes do you rate victim/eyewitness testimony as "an assumption"?

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
I did not take a position on its accuracy. Just throwing out the new development as a way of showing how ludicrous this whole situation is, which is why I called it a circus.

As I recall, there were allegations made against Anita Hill after she testified against Thomas, that seemed to have no foundation. It's part of the price women pay when they come forward.

bmiller said...

Still not sure what your point is...

I didn't see any changes in the article.

I added the relevant quotes in which I saw no changes as well as summarizing why this is bad because not only is it a failure to add relevant information but leads the reader to the false the impression that the letter was authoritative. Failure to correct the article after it was brought to CNN's attention is at best irresponsible and at worst maintaining a falsehood.

Legion of Logic said...

For what other class of crimes do you rate victim/eyewitness testimony as "an assumption"?

Your assumption that Kavanaugh is guilty is the assumption to which I refer. And building on that undemonstrated assumption, you think Kavanaugh should have been remorseful, even though he might be innocent. Innocent people do not feel remorse for things they did not do.

Also, accusations are not evidence of themselves. Such a concept would absolutely destroy the presumption of innocence standard, and every accusation would result in a guilty charge.

Incidentally, are you calling the ex boyfriend's eyewitness testimony a lie? Curious double standard that would be.

It's part of the price women pay when they come forward.

Yes, an interesting double standard. Believe women but not men. Got it.

Hal said...

An accusation by the person who has been sexually assaulted is evidence. As with all oral evidence, it has to evaluated for credibility.

Has this boyfriend's identity been released?

What do you all think about our glorious leader mocking Ms. Ford at a rally last night?

Starhopper said...

"What do you all think about our glorious leader mocking Ms. Ford at a rally last night?"

Didn't surprise me. Nothing this guy does surprises me anymore. Saddens, appalls, disgusts, repels.. yes. But surprises? No.

There is no depth which he will not plumb, no low to which he will not stoop, no standard which he will not lower.

SteveK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Legion of Logic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Legion of Logic said...

There is no depth which he will not plumb, no low to which he will not stoop, no standard which he will not lower.

Shares a lot in common with Senate Democrats, doesn't he?

Legion of Logic said...

The memo from Rachel Mitchell analyzing Ford's testimony raises very good points that need to be resolved. Those automatically assuming Kavanaugh is guilty based on accusation alone are looking less and less credible.

SteveK said...

(revising my comment because I misread something)

One Brow,
If you know that I stole the food, and am I not remorseful for it today, is that relevant?

I already explained how it tells us your general life trajectory - are you generally a better person today vs. back then? I don't need to have the information about your past history to fairly judge your character today.

If TODAY you have horrible attitudes toward stealing or towards a certain person/group then those attitude will get expressed as behavior patterns. I can discover these patterns by conducting an in-depth background check that extends back just a few years.

Or that he's better at hiding his activities or that he just got bored with them but doesn't think there's anything wrong with them. You don't know reason for the change unless you ask about it.

Again, we can discover what he thinks about these things TODAY without knowing all this other stuff. It's irrelevant.

Do your friends need to know your life history in order to know that TODAY you think it's wrong to steal, that you have empathy for victims of crimes, that you value and respect women, etc, etc? No, they don't.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
For what other class of crimes do you rate victim/eyewitness testimony as "an assumption"?

Your assumption that Kavanaugh is guilty is the assumption to which I refer.


Based on the evidence of testimony, given to questioners trying to support her claim and one questioner trying to refute it.

Also, accusations are not evidence of themselves.

Testimony is evidence. Regarding testimony to not be evidence would absolutely detroy the ability of prosecutors to get convictions in any case of sexual assault, and myriad other types of crimes as well.

Incidentally, are you calling the ex boyfriend's eyewitness testimony a lie? Curious double standard that would be.

An anonymous letter is now testimony? You may want to check your own double-standard plank before you worry about my speck.

"It's part of the price women pay when they come forward."

Yes, an interesting double standard. Believe women but not men. Got it.


Stating a historical reality (women who come find themselves accused) is now a double standard?

How do you know that letter Grassley is waving around was sent by a man at all? If the letter is accurate, Ford certainly knows who she dated for 6 years, so why the anonymity? Why does the letter-writer (LW) claim has nothing against Ford in the same letter LW says they threatened her with prosecution? How can Ford effectively address/rebut any claims LW is making while respecting their privacy, assuming anything LW says is real at all?

Ford knew her life would be turned upside-down by testifying, and did it anyhow. LW is hiding. How much credibility do they really deserve at this juncture?

Let LW come forth and testify, and then I will assess whether to believe them.

One Brow said...

Blogger SteveK said...
If TODAY you have horrible attitudes toward stealing or towards a certain person/group then those attitude will get expressed as behavior patterns. I can discover these patterns by conducting an in-depth background check that extends back just a few years.

Assuming that I no longer steal based on a cost-benefit analysis that I would lose more than I gain, or that I stole for the thrill and no longer find it exciting, how would you detect the difference between that same one who does not steal because they find it harmful to others? What would you look for?

Again, we can discover what he thinks about these things TODAY without knowing all this other stuff. It's irrelevant.

Right, because people never lie to fit in better. It's it's easy to lie and say "That's wrong", it's trickier to lie about how your past led you to know that.

Do your friends need to know your life history in order to know that TODAY you think it's wrong to steal, that you have empathy for victims of crimes, that you value and respect women, etc, etc? No, they don't.

My friends are not entrusting me with a lifetime appointment; and if they were entrusting me with something valuable, they might well want to know why I think the way I think, not just how I think.

SteveK said...

One Brow,
What would you look for?
I only care about your current behaviors and attitudes. I would look at those.

Right, because people never lie to fit in better. It's it's easy to lie and say "That's wrong", it's trickier to lie about how your past led you to know that.

It's equally easy to lie about your long-ago story of being remorseful afterward and learning great lessons from that, because you want to look better. TODAY we can check if you truly think something is wrong base on how you've lived the past few years.

It seems like you are more interested in judging a person based on their thoughts. You want to prosecute though crimes. That's what they did in the movie 1984. Don't go there.

My friends are not entrusting me with a lifetime appointment; and if they were entrusting me with something valuable, they might well want to know why I think the way I think, not just how I think.

This doesn't refute anything I've said about the distant past being irrelevant.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
I only care about your current behaviors and attitudes. I would look at those.

How do you ask about attitudes without asking about how they were formed? A checklist?

It's equally easy to lie about your long-ago story of being remorseful afterward and learning great lessons from that, because you want to look better.

I disagree, Lying about the past can trip you up regarding timelines and details you have forgotten, as they have for Kavanaugh.

It seems like you are more interested in judging a person based on their thoughts. You want to prosecute though crimes. That's what they did in the movie 1984. Don't go there.

I recall the government in 1984 trying to control thoughts (selective language, altered history, etc., and let's not start that conversation this late in the thread), but still only able to prosecute for actions/communications/etc., same as today.

This doesn't refute anything I've said about the distant past being irrelevant.

I accept that, for this particular event, you will not be moved, and that you reserve your right to think of the past as relevant in some future event down the road.

Legion of Logic said...

From Sen. Cory Booker:

"And then ultimately, not whether he’s innocent or guilty, this is not a trial, but ultimately, have enough questions been raised that we should not move on to another candidate?"

I'm glad the Democrats themselves are admitting their strategy, which is to destroy any candidate they don't like to keep them off the court. Pathetic. Sick. And cheered by the left.

Starhopper said...

I fail to see anything wrong with what Sen. Booker said. If there are enough questions about a candidate's fitness for the position, is it not time to move on to another nominee?

SteveK said...

Did he ever disobey his parents and not regret it? Was he ever spanked for behaving badly and utter cuss words in disrespect? Did he learn anything from having to do the dishes every night? Did he ever give anyone a wedgie? What kind of prank calls did he make? Did he watch HBO late at night against the wishes of his parents? What did he do to protect the environment as a your man? Did he ever convince a girl to not get an abortion? Did he ever insult someone and not apologize? Did ever choose to sleep in and skip church?

Look at all those important questions! They just keep coming. We can't possibly know if Kavanaugh is qualified to be on the court until we get answers. Time to move on.

bmiller said...

@SteveK,

Did he ever give anyone a wedgie?

You just made me think of Judgement Day. Pardon me, I have to rush to confession.

bmiller said...

BTW.
Is it a sin to threaten a bot?

Asking for a friend.

Legion of Logic said...

I fail to see anything wrong with what Sen. Booker said. If there are enough questions about a candidate's fitness for the position, is it not time to move on to another nominee?

Really?

If all it takes to derail a Supreme Court nominee is to ask a bunch of questions, regardless of the candidate's actual conduct, then how will anyone ever get on the court if Democrats don't like them? They'll just raise questions!

bmiller said...

@Legion,

Ah Po. You now have grasped the essence of DemoFoo.

SteveK said...

@bmiller
Threatening a bot is not a sin, however it raises questions about your fitness to continue using the internet. Let me check with the online mob over on Twitter so see what should be done.

Nick said...

But Ford's personal credibility is not really the issue. The issue is whether the content of her allegation is credible. The alleging is one thing, the content another. Part of that content is the proposition that Brett Kavanaugh sexually molested her. That proposition could have been alleged by people other than Ford. Is the proposition itself credible?

But what does credible mean? It means believable. But the '___able' suffix is ambiguous. Is the proposition such that some people have the ability to believe it? Yes, of course, but that is not the relevant sense of 'believable.' People believe the damndest things and thus many false and absurd propositions are believable. They are believable because they are believed.

The relevant sense of 'believable' is normative: Is the proposition alleged worthy of belief? Is it a proposition that ought to be believed by a rational person, or may be believed by a rational person? Is it epistemically permissible to believe that Brett Kavanaugh sexually molested Ford?

It is only if there is sufficient evidence. How much evidence is needed? Well, it has to be more than her say-so even if it is a sincere say-so. Suppose Ford sincerely states what she sincerely believes is the truth. That is not sufficient evidence that Kavanaugh in fact molested her. But no other evidence has turned up: there are no corroborating witnesses, for example.

I conclude that Ford is not believable in the only sense that matters: the content of her allegation is not supported by enough evidence to make it worthy of belief. Her testimony should be dismissed and Kavanaugh should be confirmed. -Bill Vallicella Is She Believable?

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
I'm glad the Democrats themselves are admitting their strategy, which is to destroy any candidate they don't like to keep them off the court. Pathetic. Sick. And cheered by the left.

Gorsuch was the guy who filled the seat denied to Garland. Gorsuch did not receive any of this treatment. I find it hard to believe there are no other conservative judges who are at least as clean as Gorsuch.

Blogger SteveK said...
Did he ever disobey his parents and not regret it? ...

I should thank you for making it clear exactly how serious you think sexual assault on women is. It's refreshing when sexism is so open.

Blogger Nick said...
I conclude that Ford is not believable in the only sense that matters: the content of her allegation is not supported by enough evidence to make it worthy of belief. Her testimony should be dismissed and Kavanaugh should be confirmed. -Bill Vallicella Is She Believable?

So, you are using the standard of evidence from a man who unironically posits that black people are more emotional than white people?

Most sexual assaults have no more evidence than the experience of the victim. It's teh nature of the crime. Absent motive on the part of the accuser to give false testimony (and I still have not heard a serious motive proposed in this case), why doubt her?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 248   Newer› Newest»